Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hi there I am quite interested in this issue can any law student answer me.
    Basically everyone knows what the consequences when we breaks the law or don't follow the law ( prison, financial penalty etc)
    But what makes us subjected to the law, citizenship? But even if you are not citizen of the state when you are located to the land which the law has effect on it you are still subjected to it for example a stateless person located in United Kingdom it still subject to the laws of the land.
    If I ride a moped without a license in a country road slowly why should the state interfere this behaviour if I dont hurt everybody.
    If laws (criminal or civil) is a contract between the people and the state then both parties should consent before it has effect on both sides. For example I join TSR I agree to the rules to the forum and if I dont agree it I can withdrew from using this forum. However a citizen with single nationality cannot just leave the country and renounce their nationality to "opt out" of the system. Therefore laws impose on a person is "forced" and it is illegal and should have no effect on the person itself
    any ideas
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonnielovely)
    Hi there I am quite interested in this issue can any law student answer me.
    Basically everyone knows what the consequences when we breaks the law or don't follow the law ( prison, financial penalty etc)
    But what makes us subjected to the law, citizenship? But even if you are not citizen of the state when you are located to the land which the law has effect on it you are still subjected to it for example a stateless person located in United Kingdom it still subject to the laws of the land.
    If I ride a moped without a license in a country road slowly why should the state interfere this behaviour if I dont hurt everybody.
    If laws (criminal or civil) is a contract between the people and the state then both parties should consent before it has effect on both sides. For example I join TSR I agree to the rules to the forum and if I dont agree it I can withdrew from using this forum. However a citizen with single nationality cannot just leave the country and renounce their nationality to "opt out" of the system. Therefore laws impose on a person is "forced" and it is illegal and should have no effect on the person itself
    any ideas
    It's an age old argument. By natural law you are not bound to the law. You are forced to be bound to the law by people with guns.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bedrock100)
    It's an age old argument. By natural law you are not bound to the law. You are forced to be bound to the law by people with guns.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    May i ask is rights given by state or it is natural exist, is air , water or food given my state or it is a natural right, is freedom a right given by state or it is naturallly exist
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    What makes you think Criminal Law is a contract between the people and the State? Because I don't think it is.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bedrock100)
    It's an age old argument. By natural law you are not bound to the law. You are forced to be bound to the law by people with guns.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Adding on. I'd say growing up with laws also influences you. You believe it's right and then you go on to defend rules you never decided on.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    What makes you think Criminal Law is a contract between the people and the State? Because I don't think it is.
    Then may I ask if it is not a contract then what is it
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonnielovely)
    Then may I ask if it is not a contract then what is it
    It's something that is imposed on you. You don't get a choice. It's not a contract, and so it doesn't matter if you don't 'consent'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    It's something that is imposed on you. You don't get a choice. It's not a contract, and so it doesn't matter if you don't 'consent'.
    Yes obviously law is "imposed" to us, but who make the state has this authority
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's related to the concept of Westphalian sovereignty. Essentially, each nation-state has control over its own territory. Any person who enters a state is subject to the laws and jurisdiction of that state. The same applies with the powers devolved to smaller subdivisions of a nation-state, so you're bound by the local laws of a town or county when you walk across the border.

    Sometimes buildings are built across borders, and you can legally do something in one half that you can't do in the other. And embassies are considered to be the soil of another nation, which actually limits what local authorities can do to someone inside an embassy.

    That's why Julian Assange (an Australian citizen) is still holed up in that embassy, and the police can't do anything but wait for him to leave and get back on British soil so that they could enforce the British law. To break into the embassy and capture Assange would have violated Ecuador's sovereignty and created an international incident, because Ecuador refused to turn him over and granted him asylum inside the embassy. Another quirk of this system is that if you go into International waters, you can get away with some fairly shady things like diploma mills and making false claims about a product you're selling, so be extremely wary of anyone that makes a sales pitch to you on a cruise that takes you into International waters.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonnielovely)
    Yes obviously law is "imposed" to us, but who make the state has this authority
    In theory, the people give the State this authority. The people agree to be bound by the law and to pay taxes in return for benefits such as the protection of the law and welfare.

    In reality, they have the authority because they can make you obey the law.

    I've occasionally wondered if I could renounce citizenship, invade a teeny tiny corner of the country that I could stand in and just have my own laws. But it doesn't work like that because you don't have to consent for the law to rule you, and you cannot buy out of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    In theory, the people give the State this authority. The people agree to be bound by the law and to pay taxes in return for benefits such as the protection of the law and welfare.

    In reality, they have the authority because they can make you obey the law.

    I've occasionally wondered if I could renounce citizenship, invade a teeny tiny corner of the country that I could stand in and just have my own laws. But it doesn't work like that because you don't have to consent for the law to rule you, and you cannot buy out of it.
    A territory of my own not necessary have laws that is more tolerant. i.e i will impose death penalty to the most serious offenders.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bedrock100)
    It's an age old argument. By natural law you are not bound to the law. You are forced to be bound to the law by people with guns.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes I slightly agree this idea, why on earth not wearing a seatbelt or helmet is the business of the state.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Imagine all those murderers and rapists you would relish your respective.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    I've occasionally wondered if I could renounce citizenship, invade a teeny tiny corner of the country that I could stand in and just have my own laws. But it doesn't work like that because you don't have to consent for the law to rule you, and you cannot buy out of it.
    It's been done: Principality of Sealand
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonnielovely)
    Yes I slightly agree this idea, why on earth not wearing a seatbelt or helmet is the business of the state.
    Because of the potential of harm / cost to others when it goes wrong.

    If you crash and require medical treatment, then the state (in the UK's case, at least) picks you up and treats you. At cost. The state therefore has a right to say you should be doing it according to x rules and regulations to limit the chance that you'll hurt yourself.

    If you crash into someone and cause them harm the state again has to pay and you are liable for the harm you've caused by not abiding to rules designed to keep you and others safe.

    Your actions can have an affect on others, which is why it's other's business how you do it.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by jonnielovely)
    Yes I slightly agree this idea, why on earth not wearing a seatbelt or helmet is the business of the state.
    Because people are stupid and sometimes need protecting from themselves.

    Not least because it's the state and everyone paying taxes that ends up funding your emergency services/legal aid bills/hospital treatment/rehabilitation/social security benefits etc. etc. etc. when you end up in a minor accident with life changing consequences, and which would have had had far less serious consequences by wearing said helmet/seat belt.

    So yes, the state does have a say in how you go about your business because it has an elected duty to protect everyone's interests and not just those of the irresponsible individual.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Bigger Army Diplomacy. It ruled the world for many years, and its metaphorical fingerprints are all over the world today. As a Roman citizen, you obeyed the law because if you didn't then you'd have an unfortunate encounter with a Roman soldier. As a Medieval villager, you obeyed your lord's law because if you didn't then you'd have an unfortunate encounter with your Lord's sword. As a Medieval king, you obeyed what your lords wanted because otherwise you'd have an unfortunate encounter with all of them outside your castle, each one steadfast in the belief that they would become king. As a nation, you obeyed what other nations with bigger armies wanted because otherwise you'd cease to be an independent nation.

    As any of the above, you obeyed the general will of the populace, because otherwise you'd have an army of people with pitchforks to contend with. As a result, the majority opinion tends to be followed (hence leading to a democratic system of government), and this becomes consistent with laws. Society in general agrees that murder is wrong, so it is illegal.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.